Although I am NOT a Fundamentalist (one who believes in the inerrancy of Scripture), I continue to be amused by the arguments of atheists and other non-believers against God and the Bible. For folks who pride themselves in their devotion to logic and skepticism, it never ceases to amaze me just how irrational and obtuse some of them can be when it comes to the topic of Scripture. They point out the obvious inconsistencies, inaccuracies, contradictions, and moral failures inherent to the Judeo-Christian Bible and dismiss the possibility of any Divine involvement, and/or they see those things as proof that the God it purports to represent does not exist! For them, the imperfections constitute absolute PROOF that both God and the Bible are just outdated relics of a superstitious past!
Unfortunately, the standard Christian apologetics do NOTHING to discredit these folks or disprove the imperfections which they point out! In fact, more often than not, their answers and explanations only serve to reinforce the criticisms of the non-believers! Instead of acknowledging the role played by fallible humans in the writing and editing of Scripture, they insist that all of the discrepancies found therein are merely illusions and that all of the historical, geographical, and scientific information contained therein is absolutely accurate. As a consequence, the non-believers simply smile, shake their heads, and correctly assert that the "Christian" response is delusional and demonstrates the validity of their criticisms.
Brothers and Sisters in Christ, the answer to these folks is NOT to be found in the beliefs and arguments of Fundamentalists. Indeed, if we are to rely on the teachings and beliefs of the Fundamentalists, we have already lost the argument! On the other hand, if we wish to have an intelligent conversation about Scripture and God, it must begin with an acknowledgement by both sides that Scripture is NOT a historically, scientifically, or geographically reliable text! (Indeed, I would argue that it was NEVER intended to be that kind of book.) Likewise, both sides must be willing to acknowledge that these writings have human fingerprints all over them - that they are literally full of the evidence of human error and frailty. Of course, we should also expect that these acknowledgements will be somewhat disorienting for our non-believing friends. After all, we've automatically eliminated most of the arguments which they quite effectively employ against the Fundamentalists!
The TRUTH is that God decided long ago to make Scripture a project in which "he" invited human collaboration/participation. Moreover, it is also imperative that we reject the Fundamentalist notion of what does and does not constitute inspiration. According to both Scripture and our own experiences as humans, inspiration is much more subtle and nuanced than what the Fundamentalists or their opposites would have us believe! The TRUTH is that God's Spirit is portrayed in the Bible as guiding, leading, educating, suggesting a course of action - it is NEVER portrayed as controlling, forcing, demanding, or dictating a course of action. And, as suggested, when we appeal to the creative experiences of artists, musicians, architects, athletes, etc., we find that inspiration is most often found in the midst of solitude and simplicity. In other words, within the context of the human experience, inspiration is rarely associated with something that is imposed or forced on an individual. Hence, the entire notion of Divine dictation of Scripture is shown to be absurd and without foundation!
In addition to all of this, we must understand that there are limitations/problems/difficulties inherent to the process of human communication. Indeed, whether most of us realize it or not, human communication is always a process. In the article, The Communication Process, we read: "The Communication Process can be broken down into several commonly accepted steps that are comprised of the following components: The Sender – This is the individual or group who is initiating the message. This message can be verbal or non-verbal, can be ongoing or a one-off, can be conscious or unconscious. The Sender can also be referred to as the Communicator. The Receiver – There must be a message sent if there is one to be received. The Receiver – sometimes known as the Interpreter – is the individual or group to whom the message is sent. Sometimes, a message received was one that was not necessarily intended to be. The Message – This is the particular content that is sent and received. The message is coded by the users in a process that we will describe shortly. The Channel – (or Medium) is the means by which the message is sent. Some common channels are: spoken voice/telephone/radio/television, written word, computer, The Context – This is the setting or environment in which the message is conveyed. Feedback – This is the response by the Receiver as to the success of the communication." Moreover, among these various components of the process, we should all be able to discern the potential for problems.
On the Communication Theory website, the article Barriers to Effective Communication, lists a number of potential problems which can and do interfere with human communication. In this regard, the article groups them together in the following categories: physical barriers (space-proximity, time, place, medium, etc.), psychological barriers (anger, depression and stress, mental states and disorders, drowsiness, fatigue, frustration, excitement, boredom, disinterest, nervousness etc.), cultural barriers, language barriers, semantic barriers, personal barriers (personality, social style, level of confidence, clothing, emotions, lack of knowledge etc.), physiological barriers (loss of eyesight, mental illnesses, physical illnesses, hearing and speaking impairment, even the learning disabilities like dyslexia, loss of memory, excessive fatigue and tiredness etc.), gender barriers, etc. In addition to these more general threats to human communication, there are also more specific challenges to written communications (as in Scripture).
In the Clearinfo, article Advantages And Disadvantages of Written Communication (from a business perspective), the following disadvantages are listed: no immediate feedback, misinterpretation and ambiguity, time-consuming, non-verbal cues not available, accessibility, rigidity, impersonal, etc. What about the advantages inherent to written communication? In the same article, we read: "One of the key merits of written communication is its ability to provide a permanent record of information that can be referred to in the future...Additionally, written communication can be easily disseminated to large groups of people, making it a valuable way to communicate important messages to a wide audience. When communicating orally, it is easy to miss or forget important details. However, with written communication, one can take the time to carefully craft a message that includes all necessary information. All in all written communication is a vital form of a communication channel as It allows for the permanent record of information, provides a means of disseminating important messages, and enables the conveyance of detailed and precise information. " The article also points out that oral communication is subject to certain advantages and disadvantages. In other words, all forms of human communication are imperfect and are subject to important limitations.
In an article for Psychology Today, How the Language You Speak Influences the Way that You Think, Dr. Neel Burton wrote: "Language may not determine thought, but it focuses perception and attention on particular aspects of reality, structures and thereby enhances cognitive processes, and even to some extent regulates social relationships. Our language reflects and at the same time shapes our thoughts and, ultimately, our culture, which in turn shapes our thoughts and language. There is no equivalent in English of the Portuguese word saudade, which refers to the love and longing for someone or something that has been lost and may never be regained. The rise of saudade coincided with the decline of Portugal and the yen for its imperial heyday, a yen so strong and so bitter as to have written itself into the national anthem: Levantai hoje de novo o esplendor de Portugal [Let us once again lift up the splendour of Portugal]. The three strands of language, thought, and culture are so tightly woven that they cannot be prised apart."
"Alright, Lonnie, I get that human communication - in particular the written word - is imperfect and not always efficient in communicating thoughts and ideas, but what does this have to do with the Judeo-Christian Bible?" my unbelieving friends will acknowledge. My answer: "EVERYTHING!" If the process is inherently imperfect/flawed, then it is literally impossible to fashion something which is completely reliable and error free! "With God all things are possible!" my Fundamentalist friends will quickly retort. I would respond by pointing out that the messenger (God) can be perfect and error free, but the vehicle of a humanly devised language is imperfect and must necessarily yield an inferior product. Let's say that the message is crafted in a flawless Divinely created language - that both the Sender (God) and the Message are perfect, we still have to account for the imperfection of the Receiver (us) - the way that we receive and interpret the message! Even so, I would say that God has employed a very flawed process to successfully communicate a message to humanity. In other words, God has made the impossible possible!
In the introduction to my copy of the New Living Translation (NLT), I found some valuable insights into the way that the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are translated into English. We read there: "English Bible translations tend to be governed by one of two general translation theories. The first theory has been called 'formal-equivalence,' 'literal,' or 'word-for-word' translation. According to this theory, the translator attempts to render each word of the original language into English and seeks to preserve the original syntax and sentence structure as much as possible in translation. The second theory has been called 'dynamic-equivalence,' 'functional-equivalence,' or 'thought-for-thought' translation. The goal of this translation theory is to produce in English the closest natural equivalent of the message expressed by the original-language text, both in meaning and in style." The NLT translators went on to acknowledge that both theories have their strengths.
Continuing, we read: "The pure application of either of these translation philosophies would create translations at opposite ends of the translation spectrum. But in reality, all translations contain a mixture of these two philosophies. A purely formal-equivalence translation would be unintelligible in English, and a purely dynamic-equivalence translation would risk being unfaithful to the original. That is why translations shaped by dynamic-equivalence theory are usually quite literal when the original text is relatively clear, and the translations shaped by formal-equivalence theory are sometimes quite dynamic when the original text is obscure." Once again, the process of communicating this message is an inherently imprecise exercise!
"Alright, Lonnie, we understand the theoretical implications that this has for any written document - including the Bible, but what does this mean in practical terms?" My Fundamentalist and non-believing friends will demand. In answering this question, I think two examples will suffice. In the second and third chapters of Genesis, we find a narrative about a nude couple placed in the midst of a garden paradise with two magical trees and a talking serpent. Should this narrative be understood literally or figuratively? Is it happenstance or intentional that the serpent in this Hebrew Old Testament narrative is later identified in the Greek New Testament as being synonymous with Satan the Devil? Likewise, when we read in the King James Version: "Thy neck is like the tower of David builded for an armoury, whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, all shields of mighty men," is it clear what the author is talking about? OR Does this passage from the New Living Translation make its meaning clearer: "Your neck is as beautiful as the tower of David, jeweled with the shields of a thousand heroes"?
Hence, we return to our original question: Does the Judeo-Christian Bible prove that God doesn't exist? Would a perfect being with unlimited resources at his disposal author such an imperfect book? If God is love, why do we read of instances where "he" commanded the Israelites to murder innocent women and children in cold blood? How can we believe in a God or a book that claims the Sun and Moon were created after the Earth?
I would answer all of these questions by saying that even if God had personally written every line in the book (a notion which the book itself clearly contradicts), the audience - we who have received the intended message - would misinterpret and misuse the book! The God in whom I believe decided to involve the receivers in the formulation/writing of "his" message - decided to involve them in the entire process! Humankind has been an integral part of the process of communicating this message from the very beginning. Humans have participated in ALL of the components of the process: Sender, Receiver, Message, Channel, Context, and Feedback. "So, you're admitting that humans wrote, edited, produced the Bible?" my friends on both sides of the divide will demand. "YES," is my answer.
Even so, I would also add that I see clear evidence of another set of fingerprints all over this collection of writings we call "The Holy Bible." Moreover, I would suggest that this evidence is spiritually discerned - ONLY recognizable by the indwelling of the Divine Spirit within me. In other words, I see a book that is both very human and flawed, while simultaneously communicating that there is someone (God) with a beautiful purpose and plan behind all that we experience, have experienced, or will experience in the future. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment